This deficit is mostly due to paratransit, or transit for people with disabilities. Changes to this program may cost RIPTA about $5.9 million next year due to elimination of the “Rhody 10” revenue and the shift of many clients from some DHS programs to unreimbursed but expensive ADA rides. There was also a loss of revenue due to changes at Johnson&Wales that reduced sales.

His “ask” to address this, as far as I can tell, was to refer to bill H6108 which seems to authorize RIPTA to charge a $1 fare to the 1/3 of all passengers who ride free, mainly low income seniors and the disabled.

It would also have the state make up any further subsidy needed as result of this reduced fare. Studley noted this is still more generous than federal requirements which allow full fare during peak hours. He indicated that with 5.6 million free rides/year, such a $1 fare with expected elasticity might produce about $3 million in additional revenue. He noted one reason for the high number of free rides is a generous qualification level at incomes up to 200% of poverty, Mr. Studley suggested consideration of lowering it to 150%.

It seems Pennsylvania and Illinois are the only other states having a comparable free ride level but those states explicitly make up the lost revenue with a state appropriation.

Studley also hinted at another gas tax hike dedicated to RIPTA, (there was a map of state gas tax rates in the power point) noted that is what happened last time RIPTA took a hit from changes in Medicaid transport policy. However, the gas tax is already going up 1 cent in July (RIPTA should get 5% of the additional revenue, about $210,000) and with MA gas tax 6.5 cents less than RI it will be a challenge to get the Assembly to boost it further.

The senators asked about fuel costs, the paratransit system, overtime expenses, but made no suggestions to close the deficit.

Charging low income seniors and disabled a fare is a sensitive subject but it is worthy of serious consideration as there seem no easy alternatives. Most passengers, RIPTA employees, and transit advocates who see the potential of transit to help our core cities, the economy and the environment, think the worst thing would be to reduce service, especially as lines with weak ridership have already been weeded out by the recent route study assessment. While a little revenue can be gained by higher fares on long distance park and ride expresses, a fare increase above $2 in the metro area may provide little additional revenue and would hurt the mostly low income working people who pay the fares.

I don’t expect much more help from the Governor. Channel 10 reported she stated her high priority was to end the car excise tax. That would be a boon to those households with many cars, or expensive cars, but at the expense of those without.

Perhaps RIPTA could do more to rebuild paying ridership which took a hit with the long KP construction and the snowstorms. It was also noted at the fare study hearing how little revenue was being generated by the employer-supported “ecopass.” Note that there is very limited support for Upass support from public colleges. For example, while Brown faculty and staff (as well as students) can ride “free” with Brown IDs, no such benefit is available to faculty and staff from CCRI, RIC or URI, not even at URI-Providence in the midst of congestion but with good transit access and where the “free” parking provided in the Convention Center garage is very expensive.

I welcome suggestions on how to proceed as does the RIPTA Riders Alliance.

A streetcar, or a “trolley” running on tracks in the street, might be in the works for Providence. Last year the city received a $13 million “TIGER” grant from the US DOT for preliminary work on a streetcar line. It was recently reported that the city was indeed seeking proposals for its planning and engineering. But in December 2014 its proposed route, originally to go from near RI Hospital to the East Side, was changed so that the streetcar would not go through the tunnel to the East Side but instead terminate at the train station. This reduces the length from 2.1 to 1.6 miles and the projected cost from about $117 to $100 million. About 2,900 daily riders was projected.

To fund the full construction, the city may consider issuing about $50 million in bonds, to be paid back by a “TIF” that is, tax increment financing whereby taxes on the enhanced property values in the area that the streetcar is expected to generate will be used to repay the bonds. The project would still need another $30 million or so to be fully funded. If the enhanced property taxes do inadequately materialize, the city would still have to pay back the bonds.

Apparently Mayor Jorge Elorza and Council President Luis Aponte think this is a good bet. Reportedly, Mr. Aponte believed further federal funding is likely as Providence is the only New England city seeking to build a streetcar. I’ll note the next round of TIGER grant applications to are due in June but I’m not aware of any public input into what the city or state apply for.

Reactions to the streetcar are mixed. City leaders and other supporters believe it will spur economic growth and jobs by attracting developers, entrepreneurs and millennials and there is some evidence that this can happen as developers like the assurance that tracks in the streets provide. There will be construction jobs as this is built. Further, there are environmental benefits to electrified transportation, especially as sustainable generation increases. And this can be the basis for a larger system of electric streetcars to serve many more communities.

However, costs are high. There are both relatively few residents along the route, and relatively few commuters coming to Providence by train, though both are expected to increase. Many considering a streetcar trip can walk instead, especially with $2 fare even for short trips. Besides the still unfunded capital costs, estimated operating deficits remain about $3.2 million/year, adding significantly to RIPTA’s deficit projections.

Thus, there is concern that a streetcar could come at the expense of some bus service. The streetcar route has much overlap with bus routes that serve the train station and the jewelry district. While no buses actually now go directly from the rail station to the hospitals, this will change when the new bus hub by the train station that voters already approved is implemented. RIPTA could also simply try a shuttle bus between the rail station and hospitals to check on the demand.

So it could be an economic boon or a costly failure.  The Providence City Council Finance Committee is holding a hearing on authorizing a TIF district for this project 6pm on Thursday, May 14.   It may be the only opportunity to weigh in with your suggestions.

Barry Schiller, former RIPTA Board member and long-time transit advocate, can be reached at bschiller@localnet.com

With September 11th just around the corner, it is time for RI Primary voters to make up their mind. I’m sure you have been sitting up half the night wondering which candidate has the strongest voice for our environment. Look no further.

Clean Water Action is proud to announce that, after vetting the candidates who seek the green stamp of approval, we have a list of those that we believe to be valuable allies. Whether your concerns are about sustainable funding for public transportation, keeping the ban on incineration in place, preserving and extending the life of our landfill, investing in water infrastructure or, more simply, protecting the beauty of Narragansett Bay and our endless coastline, consider these candidates when going to the poll next week.

For next Tuesday’s Statewide Primary, Clean Water Action has endorsed the following candidates:

– David Cicilline (D) – 1^st Congressional District

– Chris Blazejewski (D) – House District 2 (Providence)

– Libby Kimzey (D) – House District 8 (Providence)

– Joe Almeida (D) – House District 12 (Providence)

– Art Handy (D) – House District 18 (Cranston)

– Jay O’Grady (D) – House District 46 (Lincoln and Pawtucket)

– Stephen Casey (D) – House District 50 (Woonsocket)

– Gus Uht (D) – House District 52 (Cumberland)

– Gayle Goldin (D) – Senate District 3 (Providence)

– Adam Satchell (D) – Senate District 9 (West Warwick)

– Bob DaSilva (D) – Senate District 14 (East Providence)

– Lewis Pryeor (D) – Senate District 24 (Woonsocketand and North Smithfield)

– Gene Dyzlewski (D) – Senate District 26 (Cranston)

– Laura Pisaturo (D) – Senate District 29 (Warwick)

Clean Water is contacting its members in these districts by going door-to-door, making phone calls, and mailing letters to urge them to vote for environmental candidates. Another round of endorsements will be made for the General Election.